Somerville, Mass to recognize polyamorous partnerships

[New haven america]

And for the 3rd time, Polyamory=/=Polygamy.

... In theory, that is

No no, literally, by definition, they are different things.

[Cekoviu]

... In theory, that is

No no, literally, by definition, they are different things.

yes, that is what "in theory" means

[Deacarsia]

This is no bueno.

[New haven america]

No no, literally, by definition, they are different things.

yes, that is what "in theory" means

Well no, it's not.

But I'm sure if you keep saying it then it might become true, eventually, maybe... Probably not.

[Cekoviu]

yes, that is what "in theory" means

Well no, it's not.

But I'm sure if you keep saying it then it might become true, eventually, maybe... Probably not.

so according to the dictionary definitions polygamy and polyamory are different, yeah
but in real life, there is no strong distinction between polygamy and polyamory
so in practice, polygamy and polyamory are the same
but since they're different in the dictionary, they aren't the same in theory
is this making sense to u

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Well no, it's not.

But I'm sure if you keep saying it then it might become true, eventually, maybe... Probably not.

so according to the dictionary definitions polygamy and polyamory are different, yeah
but in real life, there is no strong distinction between polygamy and polyamory
so in practice, polygamy and polyamory are the same
but since they're different in the dictionary, they aren't the same in theory
is this making sense to u

Where I think people are going with this is that well-intentioned attempt at love involving more than two participants, dangerous as it may be to enshrine it into law, is still meaningfully distinct from some guy on an ego/self-gratification trip wanting multiple wives he doesn't truly love.

[New haven america]

Well no, it's not.

But I'm sure if you keep saying it then it might become true, eventually, maybe... Probably not.

1. so according to the dictionary definitions polygamy and polyamory are different, yeah
2. but in real life, there is no strong distinction between polygamy and polyamory
3. so in practice, polygamy and polyamory are the same
4. but since they're different in the dictionary, they aren't the same in theory
is this making sense to u

1. Because they are
2. Polygamy: The act of having 1 or more spouse at any given time, generally in the system of 1 person married to multiple people. Polyamory: Having multiple partners regardless of marital status with no generally accepted system or outline.
3. Again, factually incorrect. Polygamy tends to be more geared towards a show of power or status while polyamory tends to be more geared towards openness/free love and communication. Also, fun fact: Most polyamorists hate polygamists just as much as you seem to. So you're arguing bout something most polyamorists already agree with you on... (As mentioned before, a lot of polyamorists are against males having multiple female partners if there's not another male involved and are against group sex)
4. It's ok to admit that you're wrong and that you're basing your discriminatory behavior on misinformation and misunderstanding. This could be a great time to re-examine your personal biases.

[The Holy Mercurian Empire]

so according to the dictionary definitions polygamy and polyamory are different, yeah
but in real life, there is no strong distinction between polygamy and polyamory
so in practice, polygamy and polyamory are the same
but since they're different in the dictionary, they aren't the same in theory
is this making sense to u

Where I think people are going with this is that well-intentioned attempt at love involving more than two participants, dangerous as it may be to enshrine it into law, is still meaningfully distinct from some guy on an ego/self-gratification trip wanting multiple wives he doesn't truly love.

What makes you think that polygamy in the past was about ego or self-gratification? And what makes you so sure that modern polyamory is about love?

From what I understand, men of means would often take in orphans and widows as their wives, to prevent the exploitation of vulnerable women. This is especially important in a pre-modern society with a high incidence of internecine conflict, which reduces the male population, leaving many women in a precarious situation.

Meanwhile, "ego and self-gratification" are still problems today. And it seems to me that "love" is increasingly being conflated with "sexual desire" in the liberal mind. Has been since the beginning of the sexual revolution, so far as I'm concerned. "Free love" has never been more than a code phrase for libertinism.

Perhaps you would do well to spell out your idea of love, and explain to us how it is both inclusive of polyamory and exclusive of self-gratification?

[Esotyrica]

this is stupid


every polyamorous/polygamist relationship i've seen has ended in nothing but disaster for everyone involved

this gives a lot of ammo to the wignat types who are like "everything is degenerate now"

[Nolo gap]

never the place of government OR religion to define a marry age. only the signatories to it by mutual agreement.
i do feel though, that if there is going to be more then one member of one gender, this should be balanced by more then one member of another.
not that they should have to be equal in number, just that this should never be one gender sided.

(ps, "wingnut" types ARE "degenerate". aggressiveness is a perversion.)

[Vassenor]

this is stupid


every polyamorous/polygamist relationship i've seen has ended in nothing but disaster for everyone involved

this gives a lot of ammo to the wignat types who are like "everything is degenerate now"

The plural of anecdote is not data.

[Grenartia]

Why wouldn't it be?

freedom is not an inherently 'good' value

Said the person who wouldn't have the freedom to be herself in her own state less than 5 decades ago.

Freedom is at times unpleasant. Most of those times are still unpleasant and oftentimes more so under authoritarian regimes.

On stuff like this, you and I can wholeheartedly agree.

As can I. The Mad Max dystopia beats the Orwellian one every day of the week.

Did you actually prove that harm exists or not?

not to get all philosophical on u but you cannot actually """prove""" anything

So what's the point in standing for or against anything? Of asserting literally anything? You've literally just undermined your own position (and your own profession).

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180628151713.htm

this focuses on individual benefits while ignoring the detriment to society - you understand how i, as a collectivist, might find this unconvincing?

You and your sources both ignore this inconvenient little fact:

Except non-monogamy in the context you're talking about occurred in societies which did not value egalitarianism and individual rights. There is no reason to believe polyamory in our current society will produce the same effects, and to claim otherwise is a fallacy.

Imagine living in a world full of political oppression and corruption, ecological catastrophe, and widespread pestilence, and you wake up one morning and think to yourself “no... the REAL problem is the poly clusters in that small Massachusetts town... could do in the whole culture if we let that go better make that today’s priority”

We can say the same for the folks who passed this nonsense. " We could get black kids more jobs, nah let's confuse the family courts to hell".

If the state did it with appropriate family law legislation it's fine, it is a change that we can debate good or bad. A town does it with nothing to back it up it's nothing more than feel good virtue signaling, and rightfully should be deplored.

(according to wiki, this current change was intended to make health insurance more accessible to people in polyamorous relationships in light of COVID-19).

Seems to me like its more than "feel good virtue signalling".

this is stupid


every polyamorous/polygamist relationship i've seen has ended in nothing but disaster for everyone involved

Anecdotes are not evidence, and I'm willing to bet there's just as many monogamous relationships that fail just as spectacularly.

this gives a lot of ammo to the wignat types who are like "everything is degenerate now"

Well, nothing really shuts those types up, and we shouldn't let them roadblock progress.

never the place of government OR religion to define a marry age.

Ignoring the fact that this isn't about the age of consent, yes, it is. Unless you don't care about children getting sexually exploited.

only the signatories to it by mutual agreement.
i do feel though, that if there is going to be more then one member of one gender, this should be balanced by more then one member of another.

I think things should be as gay as the people involved want it to be.

not that they should have to be equal in number, just that this should never be one gender sided.

(ps, "wingnut" types ARE "degenerate". aggressiveness is a perversion.)

lolwat

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Where I think people are going with this is that well-intentioned attempt at love involving more than two participants, dangerous as it may be to enshrine it into law, is still meaningfully distinct from some guy on an ego/self-gratification trip wanting multiple wives he doesn't truly love.

What makes you think that polygamy in the past was about ego or self-gratification? And what makes you so sure that modern polyamory is about love?

From what I understand, men of means would often take in orphans and widows as their wives, to prevent the exploitation of vulnerable women. This is especially important in a pre-modern society with a high incidence of internecine conflict, which reduces the male population, leaving many women in a precarious situation.

Meanwhile, "ego and self-gratification" are still problems today. And it seems to me that "love" is increasingly being conflated with "sexual desire" in the liberal mind. Has been since the beginning of the sexual revolution, so far as I'm concerned. "Free love" has never been more than a code phrase for libertinism.

Perhaps you would do well to spell out your idea of love, and explain to us how it is both inclusive of polyamory and exclusive of self-gratification?

I'm not saying it's safe enough for everyone to enshrine into law, but come on. Love is clearly compatible with the liberal mind, if not going hand in hand with it.

Liberals believe there is not just lust, but also love, in many interracial relationships.

Conservatives, historically, opposed these.

Liberals believe there is not just lust, but also love, in many homosexual relationships.

Conservatives, historically, opposed these.

Liberals clearly have been siding with love all this time, against the procreation-centric conservative forces looking to make marriage NOT about love, but about popping out more babies to improve the Catholic/white/American birthrate and outbreed the Muslims/darkies/foreigners. I can't say I always been fully in lockstep with liberalism's unquestioning faith in love on this one; love's not as objectively defined or easy to prove as it's made out to be; but it sure as hell is a step more respectable than the "people's deepest emotions must take a back seat to this political agenda whose justifiability is questionable at best" approach.

Conservatives, for comparison, put forth a known adulterer as the main rival to a woman who has been cheated on herself.

They've not a leg to stand on in comparing polyamory to polygamy in any respect other than risk of drama. (And all sex has risks.)

[The Alma Mater]

this is stupid


every polyamorous/polygamist relationship i've seen has ended in nothing but disaster for everyone involved

What disaster befell Solomon then ?

[Cekoviu]

this is stupid


every polyamorous/polygamist relationship i've seen has ended in nothing but disaster for everyone involved

What disaster befell Solomon then ?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=ESV
tl;dr: god punishes the house of solomon for solomon's polygamy and subsequent turn to idolatry by causing ten of the tribes of israel to turn against their rule

[The Alma Mater]

What disaster befell Solomon then ?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=ESV
tl;dr: god punishes the house of solomon for solomon's polygamy and subsequent turn to idolatry by causing ten of the tribes of israel to turn against their rule

And yet he died happily surrounded by beautiful women.

[Cekoviu]

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=ESV
tl;dr: god punishes the house of solomon for solomon's polygamy and subsequent turn to idolatry by causing ten of the tribes of israel to turn against their rule

And yet he died happily surrounded by beautiful women.

"happily" is arguable, and rehoboam was then relegated to the smaller kingdom of judah

[Anurial]

There is literally no problem here

[Magnolia SafeSpace]

https://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/20200701/somerville-votes-to-recognize-polyamorous-domestic-partnerships-it-is-one-of-first-in-nation

The Somerville City Council unanimously approved an ordinance with language inclusive to polyamorous domestic partnerships.

On June 29, Somerville quietly became one of the first cities in the nation – if not the first – to recognize polyamorous domestic partnerships.

The historic move was a result of a few subtle language shifts. For example, instead of being defined as an “entity formed by two persons,” Somerville’s ordinance defines a domestic partnership as an “entity formed by people,” replaces “he and she” with “they,” replaces “both” with “all,” and contains other inclusive language.

Do women get included ? If a man can Mary four women, then she should be able to have four men in marriage. Unless this is a scam to have more sex for the man ?

On June 25, the City Council passed the ordinance recognizing domestic partnerships unanimously, and on June 29 Mayor Joe Curtatone signed it into municipal law. The city is in the process of changing the application to include space for more than two partners, but polyamorous partners will be able to file soon.

So, what say ye, NSG? Personally, as a polyamorous person, I think this is a great step forward, and hope more jurisdictions follow suit.

[The Alma Mater]

And yet he died happily surrounded by beautiful women.

"happily" is arguable, and rehoboam was then relegated to the smaller kingdom of judah

Such things happens to kingdoms.
Of course, you believe it was due to God getting mad at him for having many wives. I do not think Gods opinion or his wives had anything to do with it.

[Cekoviu]

"happily" is arguable, and rehoboam was then relegated to the smaller kingdom of judah

Such things happens to kingdoms.
Of course, you believe it was due to God getting mad at him for having many wives. I do not think Gods opinion or his wives had anything to do with it.

i don't necessarily think the OT was 100% accurate in its attributions of such things to god, but for the sake of argument, if we're trusting it on accounts of solomon's polygamy, i don't see why we can't trust it on accounts of the fall of israel

[Diopolis]

There are many well documented issues with polyamory. The legal system would have a conniption over the thought of a divorce involving a poly couple.

That’s not to say that people should be barred from having more than two partners if they so wish just that it doesn’t cause what would effectively be a legal bluescreen of death.

And I say this as someone who leans towards the non-Monogamous side of things. I’m perfectly fine with people having open relationships or poly relationships it’s just that I draw the line at the legal recognition of such.

I mean, It shouldn't be that much more of a legal hassle than divorce itself already is.

Besides, there are some things that make sense to have legal rights for. Say a triad has children, and the biological parents (who are married) die in an accident. The third partner under current law, as far as I know, has no ability to claim custody, even though they are by all rights as much of a parent as the ones who died. There's also issues with insurance plans (according to wiki, this current change was intended to make health insurance more accessible to people in polyamorous relationships in light of COVID-19).

IIRC Massachusetts has de facto universal healthcare(if not single payer) anyways, though.

[Celritannia]

Superb news.

BTW, arguments that involve "but it will destroy society" were said over LGBT marriages, women's rights, giving women the vote, giving the working class the vote, freeing slaves etc.
So that argument has no leg to stand on.

[Esotyrica]

this is stupid


every polyamorous/polygamist relationship i've seen has ended in nothing but disaster for everyone involved

this gives a lot of ammo to the wignat types who are like "everything is degenerate now"

The plural of anecdote is not data.

okay khan of spam

this is stupid


every polyamorous/polygamist relationship i've seen has ended in nothing but disaster for everyone involved

What disaster befell Solomon then ?

my name isn't solomon

[Cekoviu]

Superb news.

BTW, arguments that involve "but it will destroy society" were said over LGBT marriages, women's rights, giving women the vote, giving the working class the vote, freeing slaves etc.
So that argument has no leg to stand on.

"people used this argument in the wrong place before therefore you can't use it"